100. That is not what you said.
(Ms Collier) With respect, we are saying that the
decision about how you achieve a permanent and secure family life
for a child should be taken within months of the child starting
to be looked after. Where it is a return, which for most children
it is entirely appropriate it refers to their birth family, resourcing
of support services needs to be in place. However, for children
for whom that is not judged to be realistic then an early decision
about adoption is clearly in the child's best interests because
we know that delay and moves have a fairly deleterious effect
on the child's ability to adjust within new families. We are talking
about the quality of the test, not about the delay.

Chairman

101. Can I slightly shift the emphasis on the
welfare issue to the unmarried couples question? Presumably you
are arguingand I know my colleagues want to explore thisthat
there is a conflict between the Bill not allowing unmarried couples
to adopt and the issue of the welfare of the child. You see that
as completely contradictory and you have given evidence where
a child may be placed with foster parents who are unmarried and
they would be debarred from adopting, which would be a decision
that was not in the interests of the child. Can you see a way
for the Government to get out? How could that be changed, bearing
in mind the Government has signed up to the international convention
which, as I understand it, clearly underlines the need for partners
to be married in the adopting process? How do you see a way forward
in this, because I certainly take account of the contradiction
here that you have raised?
(Ms Collier) We must remember that we signed up to
that European Convention in 1967, the peak time of babies being
adopted because their unmarried mothers felt the degree of social
stigma was so great and the child would be, therefore, adopted
by a married couple. I do think it is right and proper in this
country that we review the sort of commitment that we made in
1967 in the light of current social practice and what we know.
We recognise that many people who actually enquire about adoption
are living in stable partnerships but are not married. The first
issue is that we know this deters some people from going ahead
because they do not want to differentiate between two adult relationships
to a child. However, from the point of view of the child, it is
illogical to have a child who is living with a single adopter
with an adult partner, which is perfectly legal and, in many circumstances,
the partner of that single adopter will apply for a residence
order. How do you tell a child that there are different levels
of importance attached these two: one is their legal parent but
one is not? That does not seem to us to be logical. So we therefore
think that we need to review, however difficult that may be, our
signature to that particular convention. We think it should be
possible, as it is for special guardianship orders; there is a
clear anomaly here where it is proposed that two adults living
together can both apply for a special guardianship order but not
in relation to the commitment of adoption.

102. Do you think there are wider political
issues as background to the Government not moving on this than
simply this convention?
(Ms Collier) Yes, I understand and recognise the commitment
of the Government and, indeed, the cross-party commitment to the
importance of marriage to secure family life, but the reality
is that there is a very different position in society at large
where we are told that approximately 40 per cent of children are
being born out of wedlock. We do not think it is helpful to use
the importance the Government may wish to attach to statements
about marriage in this particular issue of adoption. Adoption
is too important for using it as an example of what is a perfect
family. The family values argument is important but it is for
another place. This is about achieving lifelong security and permanence
for our most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.

103. This is going to broaden out into the issue
of heterosexual versus gay fostering. Caroline is possibly going
to raise it, but clearly the assumption here is that we are talking
entirely about heterosexual couples.
(Ms Collier) I think the minister has said that the
Government has no objection to gay and lesbian people who are
appropriately assessed as suitable in adopting as single people.
If two people are living in a committed and stable relationship
and wish to make a joint commitment to a child, then I believe
an obvious sequitur of having unmarried couples in stable, committed
relationships is that since there is no bar for people in gay
and lesbian relationships adopting a child that they, too, would
have the option to apply jointly to adopt and make a lifelong
commitment to a child. If that particular placement is in the
best interests of the children, then we would support that.

104. It is fair to say that currently there
are a number of same-sex foster couples with children on a long-term
basis.
(Ms Collier) Yes.

105. Before I broaden this out, are you aware
of any pressure to change that convention from the Government?
(Ms Cullen) I have not been able to do research about
which other countries actually have signed up, but I have information
from the Netherlands. Maybe they have not signed up to that convention
anyway, but they have recently passed legislation specifically
allowing adoption by same-sex couples. So, presumably, they have
not signed up to it. Certainly, in France, where they are considering
formal agreements between unmarried partners, it would seem logical
that in due course they would allow adoptions by unmarried partners
as well. I do not know the legal position.

Caroline Flint

106. On the marriage and on the sexuality issue,
on the marriage issue when we are told that for people who want
to adopt childrenoften because they cannot have children
of their ownit is something that is very important to them,
why then would they not seenot necessarily in church but
under the lawdefining their relationship in terms of a
more public, legal contract as being a precursor to actually adopting
a child? Of course, there are very successful co-habiting relationships
(I happen to be in one myself), but alsoand I recognise
this, as someone who is in a co-habiting relationshipthe
number of children that do come into a situation where they are
being looked after, the issues around social exclusion, the issues
about teenage pregnancies, often occurnot alwaysin
situations where there have not been established relationships
and certainly where marriage has not been a feature. I say that
as devil's advocate because I actually think that is what the
evidence suggests.
(Ms Collier) I think back in the early 1990s, when
this was first considered, I would have tended to agree with you,
that if an unmarried couple in a heterosexual relationship wanted
to make a legal commitment to a child it was logical, therefore,
that they might demonstrate that by making a legal commitment
to each other. I think now we have to recognise that there are
people in society who make a decision that marriage is neither
necessary nor appropriate in terms of a philosophical recognition
of their commitment to each other which will survive despite marriage.
If we actually say that we do not accept that, for the arguments
you put forward and which I might once have put forward in the
past, then what we are effectively doing is denying children the
full range of potential adopters at a time when there are insufficient
adopters. Let us be absolutely clear, there are insufficient people
coming forward to adopt the children with the complexity and backgrounds
currently looking for adoption.

107. On to my next point. From what I understand
marriage is on the increase today and has become popular again.
I am getting married in July; having been married and co-habited,
I am getting married again. It is, apparently, becoming a popular
institution once again. Is the real issue hereand I think
it needs flagging up because I think in your submission you studiously
avoid the issue around same-sex relationships, which I think is
a bit cowardly on your part, if you are going to raise this issuemarriage
or is this a way of your organisation saying up front, and perhaps
you would like to say up front today, whether or not you do approve
of adoptions by same-sex couples, and that is actually what you
are driving at here rather the issue around co-habiting couples?
(Ms Collier) The first thing I want to be absolutely
clear about is that this is not our way of making a backdoor statement;
we have always been clear that people should be approved and assessed
for adoption, but on the basis of what they can offer to children
and on their suitability to adopt. Sexuality, for us, is not the
predominant issue. A range of people should be considered for
adoption, and there is perfectly good evidence that gay and lesbian
people are just as capable of being excellent adopters as single
and married people. However, with the best interests of children,
there are many children for whom their assessed needs are to have
a mother and a father. So we are looking at what is best for particular
children. We recognise that if there are so many people living
in co-habiting relationships who are deciding not to marry and
there is a massive shortage of adopters, then we consider that
unmarried couples should be considered for adoption. In terms
of the stability and popularity of marriage I am pleased to hear
you say that marriage is on the increase, but I think we all need
to recognise that one in two marriages end in divorce.

108. There is a far greater rate of failure
in co-habiting relationships as in married relationships.
(Ms Collier) Yes, but what we are talking about is
people making a lifelong commitment and children having the opportunity
of two legal parents. Had we wanted to draw this to your attention,
I am happy to say that we would see that the inclusion of allowing
two people who are unmarried and in a stable and committed relationship
(and we are talking about social workers assessing adopters' relationships)
was very important, and would also, we believe, apply to gay and
lesbian people in close and committed relationships who can also
demonstrate the longevity and stability of that relationship during
their assessment. However, that is not the primary reason that
we have brought this forward, but you are right it would also
apply.

Mr Hutton

109. Very briefly, in relation to the earlier
exchanges we had about dispensing with parental consent in relation
to adoption orders, you cited the Adoption Law Review Committee
in support of your argument that the Bill as it is drafted should
be changed to include this concept of significantly better. In
relation to this debate we are having about whether unmarried
couples should adopt, you suggested that the international convention
we signed in the 1960s needed to be reviewed because it reflected
a previous social climate. It is true to say that the same Adoption
Law Review Committee that you cited in support of your earlier
argument reviewed this issue, did it not, in the early 1990s and
recommended that you retain the prohibitions on unmarried couples
adopting. That is right, is it not?
(Ms Collier) Yes, that is, and we are talking about
8 or 9 years ago. There is one comment within that reportyou
will correct me if I am wrongwhich actually pointed out
that one of the reservations about this was that the extended
family of partners within unmarried couples may not make the same
commitment to children who were not legitimised through being
adopted by a married couple. We believe now that given the numbers
of children born outside marriage many more extended families
will make commitments to their grandchildren who are born to unmarried
couples. We believe that we have to reflect the growing changes
in society's structure.

110. Can I ask you one more question about your
comment earlier, when you said that the present legal requirements
enabling a married couple to adopt would, effectively, preclude
unmarried couples from considering adoption of a child. That is
not true, is it, because one of them could adopt and the other
parent could obtain a residence order under which they would gain
parental responsibility of the child.
(Ms Collier) I did say that earlier. I said the difficulty
there is two-fold: one is that some adults will not come forward
to adopt in these circumstances because they will see that the
differential status of the two people in relation to the child
is not helpful to their commitment to the child, and, secondly
and more worryingly, children's organisations tell us that children
find it difficult to perceive the logic by which they have got
a real mum and a dad who has got, if you like, some kind of custody
orderis how it is interpretedrather than a legal
and forever adoption. If these unmarried relationships subsequently
break downwhich, as you say, is slightly more likely, than
if couples were marriedthen the child would still have
two legal parents who were then responsible for that child in
the same way as an adoption when the parents sadly divorce.

111. But the current arrangements around adoption
in regard to unmarried couples simply reflect, do they not, the
legal position that unmarried couples have in relation to their
own children? They are not anything different. If they are not,
there is no difference.
(Ms Cullen) I think that is, actually, quite a significant
difference. There is already the law that allows an unmarried
father to obtain parental responsibility in all respects, exactly
the same legal status as a married father, in respect of his child
by agreement with the mother or by a court order. Under this Bill
that position will be achieved simply by jointly registering the
birth. There is also the position under the Human Fertilisation
and Embryology Act whereby the male partner in an unmarried couple
in a stable relationship who use artificial insemination by donor
is legally the father of the child. If we recognise thatwhere,
actually, I think, generally speaking, infertility clinics would
not be doing the same sort of assessment of such couples as adoption
agencies would be doing before placing a childit does not
seem to me to be logical to exclude those same unmarried couples
from having the joint lifelong commitment to the child that you
get from an adoption order.

Mr Brazier

112. I would like to come back to Caroline's
point. You referred to the condemnation and the stigmatisation
of the 1960s, but it seems to me this is more about aspiration.
The most recent survey by the ONS into the stability of co-habiting
relationships was, I think, 1997, and it showed that a child born
to a married couple ten years before had an 81 per cent chance
that the parents were still married. A child born to a co-habiting
couple (and you talked about couples who were deeply committed
but philosophically opposed to marriage) interestingly, an awful
lot of those childrenover 47 per centhad gone on
to get married. However, the interesting thing was that those
who had philosophical objections to marriage, of the 59 per cent
who did not get married, 85 per cent had separated by the ten-year
mark. So the difference between married couples is 81 per cent
and 15 per cent on the other. I just put it to you that the statistics
reinforce the very sensible point that Caroline was making: if
people are willing and so anxious to get the piece of paper to
say "This is a formal adoption" rather than the kind
of arrangements which the Minister was suggesting, why do they
not get the other piece of paper and get married?
(Ms Collier) I do not particularly want to say anything
about that, Julian.

Mrs Spelman

113. I do want to reinforce this piece of logic,
which is that when you were explaining your justification for
the position that you take, you were saying that society has moved
on from the position it was in 8 or 9 years ago and that a couple
may philosophically choose not to get married. Does this not nibble
away at the paramountcy of the child argument, because you are
there placing the right of adults to decide. They philosophically
choose not to get married and you are choosing to recognise that
right by arguing the case for them, but before us is some pretty
strong evidence of stability being more likelyalthough
not cast ironwhere people get married. My concern here
is are you being driven along in your position by what society
is choosing to do which may actually, statistically, be completely
the opposite of what is in the interests of the child?
(Ms Collier) There are two points. First of all, we
do not know the degree of relationship breakdown of people who
go on to successfully adopt children, be theyas with the
Minister's examplesingle people with partners with residence
orders or married couples. We do know that the strain of caring
for some of the children who are currently adopted is such that
some relationships do break down. Nevertheless, my assumption
would be that because of the degree of very careful assessment
by social workers about the emotional stability and perseverance
of people who come forward to adopt, I would be surprised if the
sort of examples from the ONS study that Julian cites were, in
fact, typical of the sort of people who are approved as suitable
adopters. It would be very interesting to do a piece of research
in that respect. The other issue is that we are looking at increasing
the number of children who are successfully adopted at a time
when there is an enormous gap in the number of people coming forward
to adopt children from this background. I think, in the interests
of children, we therefore have to increase the range of prospective
adopters who will make forever and legal commitments to children
and, at the same time, assess their suitability to do so.

Mr Shaw

114. We are able to agree with the point you
are making that we are not comparing like with like, and the statistics
that Julian was referring to are not people who have been subject
to the rigorous examination of prospective adopters. How many
constituents say that there is no qualification for being a parent?
There certainly is a very, very big and rigorous qualification
to being an adoptive parent.
(Ms Collier) Can I just say that we absolutely think
that is important, because what we do not want is for children
to experience the breakdown and separation of the adults caring
for them in the same way that, sadly, they have already lost their
original birth family.

Caroline Flint

115. I want to be clear here. In terms of your
priorities, all the evidence seems to suggest that one of the
reasons why, potentially, there are not enough prospective adopters
coming forward and other reasons why there are so many problems
within this area and why this Bill is being put together, is the
delays that occur within the system which mean that more and morecompared
to 20 years agoprospective adoptive parents are potentially
having to take on older children with some known and unknown difficulties,
which, as has been cited in the evidence, can lead to the adoptive
relationship breaking down. When push comes to shove, and talking
about using the argument about getting more adoptive parents,
would you agree that the priority should be reducing the time
in which children are looked after part-time and sent back to
birth families before they are adopted, and that the younger child
should be adopted before damage is unfortunately done, as with
so many children? Are these the two key priorities above this
issue around marriage?
(Ms Collier) We are, obviously, concerned about inappropriate
delay but, of course, we also recognise the fact that of the children
who are placed for adoption, where there are difficulties in finding
adopters, there are many other factors that we think discourage
people from coming forward. One is the lack of appropriate financial
support, one is the inconsistency of the availability of practical
support and other support services. If adopters had the confidence
that with even young children who have already experienced neglect
and abuse they could get support more people would come forward.
We must also remember that 60 per cent of the children who are
referred to BAAF's national linking mechanisms to find new families
need to be adopted with one or more birth sibling, and that makes
a considerable demand on prospective adopters, and not all adopters
believe they can take that on board. Addressing delays alone would
not make the difference to the numbers of children in sibling
groups. It would not, also, make the difference to the fact that
20 per cent of children have a physical impairment and a significant
number of children have learning disabilities and difficulties.
We do not think there is a simple answer to increasing the number
of adopters.

116. I was asking which priorities you would
give to those three things.
(Ms Cullen) I think it probably is fair to say that
the question about the marital status of adopters is of less weight
than the other factors. We are just trying to getI hate
to use the phrasea level playing field so that, basically,
we do not deter people unnecessarily from coming forward and meeting
the needs of these children.

Ann Coffey

117. Going back to the Bill again, as you know
the Bill says that in placing the child for adoption the adoption
agency must give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion,
racial origin and cultural and linguistic background. The last
time we met we had quite a discussion about what due consideration
should be, particularly if it gave rise to delay. Ten years ago
when I was an adoption worker there was quite a strong emphasis
on making sure that there was considered to be a proper match
between those particular factors and the adoptive family. I do
recollect that that could lead to long delays in finding what
was then considered to be the right family in terms of racial
and cultural match. I wondered what your views were on it now,
and what you would interpret as being given a due consideration
meaning, and how you would balance that against that bit in the
Bill which is clearly aimed to do away with unnecessary delays
in adoption?
(Ms Collier) We recognise the complexity of this issue.
I would point to the Government's draft national standards for
adoption which say that the family of choice for a looked-after
child is the one that reflects his or her birth heritage. We believe
in that principle. We believe in that principle on the basis that
what we know is, where children have already experienced disruption,
difficulty and separation, that they will have a lack of self-esteem
and self-confidence. Where children can be brought upbe
they white children, be they black or mixed parentage childrenwith
families that broadly reflect their own ethnicity and cultural
background it really affects the way they feel most confident
and good about themselves in the future. That does not diminish
the fact that there have been many successful adoptions that,
in terms of external indicators, have succeeded where children
have been placed with families of a different ethnicity. We understand
from what young people and adults tell us, who have been trans-racially
adopted, that there is an extra barrier.

118. Can I stop you there because I am not disputing
that. The question I was asking you was, that in the Bill it says
"due consideration", and those factors are important
for all the reasons you are saying. What I am inclined to get
back from you is how you balance that. For example, do you think
it is more proper to wait perhaps a year or 18 months to find
the right family in terms of those factors, or two years or three
years; or do you feel that there should be a balance where perhaps
one should seek a family match but, if that is not available then,
because it is important to place particularly young children without
delay that that factor should be taken into the balance? I am
trying to get your views on that. I am not disputing that it is
important.
(Ms Collier) We believe that no child should be subject
to indefinite and unnecessary delay. We recognise the importance
of particularly small children being placed as quickly as possible
in families that can offer them that lifelong security; but we
do not think it is easy to have arbitrary timescales in relation
to this particular decision to fly across the board, because different
children have different experiences and have different levels
of need. I do not want to beleaguer the point, and I know it is
not the question you are asking me to answer, but of course we
know we can bring forward more families from different ethnic
groups with better financial support services.

119. Your view as an agency
(Ms Collier) We believe that some children will be
placed with a family which will not reflect their ethnicity but
can actively "value and promote" (which tend to be the
words we use) the children's ethnic background. For example, living
in perhaps multicultural communities where the children are not
being isolated and are not the only children of a different skin
colour; and, therefore, where families understand the issues and
are able to support and help those children if they do experience
racism. We think those are important. Indeed, that is reflected
in BAAF's new form F1 which actually asks social workers to assess
adoptive parents' ability to parent a child of a different ethnicity.
We think that demonstrates our commitment to finding families
for children which will not always reflect their ethnicity when
it is not possible to do so.